Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-pacman

mcp-server-pacman

by oborchers
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

docker_image_info

Retrieve detailed metadata, size, and configuration for any Docker image by name and tag. Specify the image repository and optionally the tag to get comprehensive info such as layers, architecture, and creation date.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific Docker image

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "docker_image_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesImage name (e.g., user/repo or library/repo)
tagNoSpecific image tag (default: latest)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a generic 'get information' without specifying side effects, required permissions, network dependencies, or the nature of the returned data. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action. No extraneous words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., layers, config, metadata). An agent cannot predict the return format or completeness without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies; the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get detailed information about a specific Docker image' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Docker image'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_docker_image, leaving ambiguity about what 'detailed information' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_docker_image or package_info. The agent receives no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools